Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Mukesh Bera on 30 July, 2019
Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat, Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 47/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Ayurved And Technical Medicine, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Ayurved Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Ajmer.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Mukesh Bera S/o Shri Rajaram Bera, Aged About 27
Years, Kathoti, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur (Raj.).
2. Dr. Sarvapalli Radhakrishan, Rajasthan Ayurved
University, Nagaur Road, Karwad, Jodhpur Through Its
Registrar.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur, AAG assisted by
Mr. Anupam Gopal Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ripudaman Singh
Mr. Yashpal Khileree
Mr. Anil Vyas with Mr. Amit Gaur
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment 30/07/2019
1. In review proceedings, the State seeks recall of impugned order dated 6.3.2019 urging that the decision in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Manohar Singh & Ors. (D.B. S.A.W. No.281/2013), decided on 27.1.2014 - which was followed, cannot be treated as an applicable precedent in light of the fact that there are distinct differences. It is pointed out that the scheme for grant of bonus marks in this case differs significant from that in Manohar Singh's case.
(Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:54:46 AM)
(2 of 3)
2. Learned AAG urges that the concession recorded by the Single Judge was the sole basis for the main order of the Division Bench, could not have been the basis for the disposal of the writ petition, and the appeal as well.
3. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent argues that having accepted the decision in Manohar Singh, the State is now precluded from arguing that the scheme differs in the present case. It is also urged that the subsequent developments cannot constitute a ground for review.
4. The decision in Manohar Singh, we notice, was premised upon a certain assumption that the experience of working, in the institutions that worked for the State, should also count for bonus marks. The Division Bench in the main order, did not take into account the Clause-7(2) of the advertisement dated 06.10.2018 which confined grant of bonus marks to experience gained by the employees in four classes of institutions.
5. In the present case, the writ petitioner Mukesh Bera responded to advertisement of 6.10.2018 to fill up the vacancies in the post of Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade. The four categories were - those who worked with the State of Rajasthan under the National Rural Health Mission (in short 'NRHM'); employees who worked under the Chief Minister BPL Scheme, the individuals appointed under the State Jeevan Raksha Kosh and those who worked with the State of Rajasthan in its departments, with similar experience.
6. This Court has held today in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Daulat Ram & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.673/2019) that the earlier Division Bench judgment in Manohar Singh - which was sought to be acted upon through a (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:54:46 AM) (3 of 3) letter dated 8.2.2016 cannot be considered a binding precedent in light of Rule 19. That Rule enables the Government to award bonus marks for similar work "under the Government, Chief Minister BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh, National Rural Health Mission, as the case may be". Clearly, what is conceived of by the State Government is in the form of a benefit - which cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Furthermore, the Court's power to interfere cannot result in a wide interpretation and expansion of benefits to others who are not entitled to it.
7. For the above reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the review petition has to be accepted and the same is allowed. The order dated 6.3.2019 is recalled.
8. With consent, the appeal was heard today along with other similar matters.
9. Following the decision in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Daulat Ram & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.673/2019) decided today, the special appeal no.242/2019 is, for the same reasons, allowed.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J (S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ 53-Sphophaliya/-
(Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:54:46 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)